Transcript Harnessing Insight into Disciplinary Differences to Refine

Harnessing Insight into
Disciplinary Differences
to
Refine e-learning Design
Su White & Ilaria Liccardi
FIE 2006 San Diego
28-31 October 2006
http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie2006/papers/1784.pdf
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction and Background
Understanding Disciplinary Differences
Approaches to e-learning
Survey
Discussion
Background: our survey
Survey of students
attitudes
– Wanted to find out
about their experience
and perceptions of
e-learning
– Identify user needs
– Compare experience
with theory
Because
– Disciplinary
differences literature
– Ad hoc development
of e-learning
resources
– High cost of
developing
e-learning resources
– Sometimes structural
barriers to change
Indicative Areas
Applied
Social Sciences
and
Humanities
Engineering
Hard
Soft
Nursing
or
Education
Natural
Sciences
Pure
Biglan, 1973
Mapping the differences
Curriculum/Content
Cognitive Purpose
Assessment
Disciplinary Learning
Reflecting on Biglan…
“a sound understanding of key aspects of
teaching and learning must depend on the
recognition of the distinctive features of
different knowledge domains and their social
mileiux”
(Neumann et al., 2002)
And maybe taking into account perspective of authors??
Hard Subjects…
Curriculum/Content
Hard
Pure
e.g.
Natural
Sciences
•
•
•
•
Hard
Applied
e.g.
Engineering
•
•
•
Concepts and principles
closely connected.
Content typically fixed
and cumulative.
Quantitative.
Teaching and learning
activities are focused
and instructive.
Assessment
•
•
Concerned with the
mastery of the physical
environment.
Focus is on products and •
techniques.
Knowledge is atomistic
and cumulative.
Emphasises factual
understanding
Cognitive Purpose
•
•
Logical reasoning.
Testing of ideas in
linear form of
argumentation.
Reliance on facts,
principles, and
concepts.
•
Problem-solving
and practical skills
Emphasis on
integration and
application of
existing knowledge
Specific and focused
exam questions.
Objective tests
relying on quantitative •
nature of knowledge
Preference for exam
questions, especially
problem-solving
•
Soft Subjects…
Curriculum/Content
Soft
Pure
•
e.g.
Social
Sciences
and
Humanities
•
•
•
Assessment
Non-linear, open and
•
loose
•
Content is free-ranging
Qualitative
Teaching and learning
•
activities are constructive
and interpretive
Essay questions,
short answer
questions, and oral
presentations
Ongoing assessment
Cognitive Purpose
•
•
•
Soft
Applied
•
e.g.
Nursing
or
Education
•
Concerned with the
enhancement of
professional practice
Knowledge reiterative
and holistic
•
•
Essays, projectbased assignments
Use of peer and selfassessment tasks
•
Broad command of
intellectual ideas
Emphasis on
creativity in thinking
and fluency of
expression
Emphasis on
personal growth
and intellectual
breadth
Development of
reflective practice
and lifelong
learning skills
Definitions are not absolute
but….
• different requirements
specific to each of the
four broad areas
• Can inform decisions
related to curriculum
design and pedagogic
innovations
• approaches outlined
relate to general
educational methods
• different types of elearning
implementation match
different educational
methods
Framework Implications
concerned for
“indiscriminatory eagerness to embed methods
found effective in one discipline area into other
less amenable fields”
Neumann Parry and Becher
• This observation may have special resonance to
those who are making curricular changes which
involve e-learning and blended learning
Approaches to e-learning
Historical
Progress
Education
(+) Technology
Technology
Affordances
Education + technology
1970s Kolb
Applying
Experiencing
CBT-> CAI-> ->CAL->CBL->….
Generalising
Processing
• One of many educational
models
• Recurs in many educational
technology applications
• Biglan drew on Kolb…
Disciplinary Perspectives
But what about my specialist area?
Applying
Generalising
Experiencing
Processing
Biglan thought about Kolb…
• But wanted to explain the
specific context of academic
disciplines and fields of study…
The Knowledge
The Processes
Hard or Soft
Pure or Applied
Becher Parry and Neumann
• relate this more specifically to
educational processes…
1990s Laurillard
Teacher’s conceptual
knowledge
reflection
on
student
performance
discussion
adaption
of
world
Teacher’s constructed
world
Student’s conceptual
knowledge
adaption
of
actions
reflection
on
interaction
Student’s experiential
knowledge
interaction
Laurillard’s Conversational Model
“Rethinking University Education”, 1993
Discussion
extrinsic feedback
clarifying
learners’ ideas
Interaction
acting in world
to achieve goals,
getting intrinsic
feedback
Adaption
adapting actions in
light of feedback
Reflection
reflecting on action to
modify description
Teaching approaches
Wright and White, 2001
Learning activities
Our Student Survey
Hard Pure: Bioscience, Earth Environment Science, Maths,
Statistics, Operational Research, Physical Science
Hard Applied: Built Environments, Engineering, Health Science and
Practice, Computer Science, Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary
Medicine, Psychology
Soft Pure: Economics, English, History, Classic and Archaeology,
Language Linguistics and Area Studies, Philosophical and Religious
Studies, Sociology, Anthropology and Politics
Soft Applied: Art, Design and Media. Business Management and
Accountancy Education Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism, Law
-Dance, Drama and Music Social Policy and Social Work
Survey
Survey Participants
Field of
Study
Under
graduate
Post
graduate
Hard
Pure
43
15
Hard
Applied
93
23
Soft
Pure
48
16
Soft
Applied
90
8
Total
224
62
Grand total 286
Focus
• Experience & Perceived Needs
• How do students regard e-learning
Context
• UK – high level of specialisation
• Face to face, research intensive
• Blended learning widespread
Questions
• Past and Present Experience
• Rate Approaches
(Five Types + VLE’s)
Major Findings
The responses were broadly consistent with knowledge framework.
Students in Hard areas valued
• online tutorials
• reference materials
• objective tests (also VLEs)
Students in Soft areas valued
• synchronous discussions
• role play and games
• access to open web
• Access to online journals
• Support the mastery of facts,
principles and concepts.
• Quantitative, Closed
• Support the development of
argumentation skills and
critical thinking
• Qualitative Open
Tensions in our areas…
Neumann Parry and Becher
• students In Hard fields of study experience a heavy
workload, so technology which offers affordance which
save or optimise the use of time will be powerful
• However from the point of view of the academic there is
also a “high incidence of face to face teaching and
concern for substantial coverage”
So…
• Academics may be disinclined to invest large amounts of
additional time preparing e-learning materials
Relevance to e-learning?
Broad Conclusions
• Confirmed the theory 
• Identified particular
perceived needs 
• Pointers for future
developments
• blended approaches…
• allow systematic selection
of activities to best meet
range of requirements
• supporting student
learning
• making good use of
faculty time
• streamline administrative
tasks
(monitoring and recording
student progression and
achievement)
Further Questions
• How can insight into disciplinary differences
assist the selection of effective e-learning
approaches?
• How can understanding disciplinary preferences
help identify ways of working with faculty to
successfully embed e-learning and develop
blended approaches?
• What are the technology affordances of elearning which might best be used in
engineering and its cognate areas?
http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie2006/papers/1784.pdf
Thank You 
Dr Su White
Learning
Technologies
Group
University of
Southampton
[email protected]
About Dr Su White
Su White is based in the Learning Technologies research group in Electronics
and Computer Science at the University of Southampton.
Su is a member of the Advisory Group for the Higher Education Academy
Subject Centre for Information and Computer Science and is also one of
their regional academic advisors. She is also a member of the Council for
Professors and Heads of Computer Science Working Group on Learning
Development.
With an original working background in journalism and computer programming,
Su has a first degree in the social sciences from the London School of
Economics and post graduate qualifications in Computer Science and
Education from the University of London. She has been based in
Southampton since 1993 when she joined a university wide project
developing an institutional approach to the use of computer based learning
resources.
She has had specific responsibilities as a Learning and Teaching co-ordinator
in the University since 1998 where she has held this role at a Faculty and
School level.
references
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
[1]
A. Biglan, "The Characteristics of Subject Matter in Different Academic Areas," Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 57, pp. 195–203, 1973.
[2]
A. Biglan, "Relationships between Subject Matter Characteristics and the Structure and Output of University Departments.," Journal of Applied Psychology,
vol. 57, pp. 204–213., 1973.
[3]
T. Becher, "The Significance of Disciplinary Differences," Studies In Higher Education, vol. 19, pp. 151, 1994.
[4]
R. Neumann, "Disciplinary Differences and University Teaching," Studies In Higher Education, vol. 26, pp. 136-146, 2001.
[5]
R. Neumann, S. Parry, and T. Becher, "Teaching and Learning in Their Disciplinary Contexts: A Conceptual Analysis," Studies In Higher Education, vol. 27,
pp. 405-418, 2002.
[6]
C. Jones, M. Zenios, and J. Griffiths, "Academic Use of Digital Resources: Disciplinary Differences and the Issue of Progression," presented at Networked
Learning, 2004.
[7]
N. V. Hammond and C. Bennett, "Using C&IT to Support Group-Based Learning: What's Effective and How Do Disciplines Differ?" presented at Online
Conferencing in the Arts and Humanities: Proceedings of HAN Conference, 2001.
[8]
N. Hammond, "Understanding Scholarly Teaching: Role of Discipline, Institution And National Context.," presented at Improving University Teaching 29th
annual conference, Berne, 2004.
[9]
D. Laurillard, Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology. London: Routledge, 1993.
[10]
D. H. Jonasson, J. T. Mayes, and R. McAleese, "A Manifesto for a Constructivist Approach to Uses of Technology in Higher Education," in Designing
Environments for Constructivist Learning, T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, and D. H. Jonassen, Eds. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1993, pp. 231-247.
[11]
Knuth and Cunningham, "Tools for Constructivism. In," in The Design of Constructivist Learning Environments., T. Duffy, J. Lowyck, and D. Jonassen, Eds.
Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1993.
[12]
R. Schank and C. Cleary, "Engines for Education." New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994.
[13]
J. T. Mayes, "Learning Technology and Groundhog Day," presented at Hypermedia at Work: Practice and Theory in Higher Education, University of Kent at
Canterbury, 1995.
[14]
S. White and P. Maier, "Building Models Which Enable Change: An Examination of the Teaching and Learning Technology Support Network," presented at
Bringing Information Technology to Education (BITE), Maastricht, 1998.
[15]
V. Wright and S. White, "Technology and Language Learning," in Supporting Lifelong Language Learning. Theoretical and Practical Approaches, L. Arthur
and S. Hurd, Eds.: Open University & CILT, 2001.
[16]
W. W. Gaver, "Technology Affordances," presented at Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Reaching through
technology, New Orleans, 1991.
[17]
N. Entwistle, "Learning Outcomes and Ways of Thinking across Contrasting Disciplines and Settings in Higher Education," Curriculum Journal, vol. 16, pp. 6782, 2005.
[18]
N. Entwistle, J. Nisbet, and A. Bromage, "Teaching-Learning Environments and Student Learning in Electronic Engineering," presented at Third Workshop of
the European Network on Powerful Learning Environments, Brugge, 2004.
[19]
N. J. Entwistle, D. Hounsell, and F. Marton, The Experience of Learning: Implications for Teaching and Studying in Higher Education. Edinburgh: Scottish
Academic Press 1997, 1997.
[20]
N. Hammond, "Discipline-Based Research into Learning and Teaching: A Survey," presented at International society for the scholarship of teaching and
learning, Indiana, 2004.
[21]
E. McDowell, S. White, and H. C. Davis, "Changing Assessment Practice in Engineering: How Can Understanding Lecturer Perspectives Help?" European
Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 29, pp. 173-181, 2004.